On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 09:55:48AM -0400, Pei Wang wrote: > However, "to be able to generate radically new compound" is not necessarily > what matters. Given the same set of initial terms coming from the
Intelligence designed by nature seems to disagree, empirically. > experience of the system, and allowing the same time to generate new > compounds, the incremental approach will produce compounds closer to the > experience of the system, though may miss good ones too far away, while the > evolutionary approach may produce same good ones, but also many compounds > which are completely useless. Being trapped in a local minimum, just because your generation system can't provide a traversable trajectory is just as fatal. You're referring to costs of screening. Computation is cheap in principle. We're used to systems containing 10^9 switches, but cheap systems with 10^23 switches ~ps..~fs range are not so very far away. > This is actually what I belief the difference between "intelligence" and > "evolution" --- though both are adaptive mechanism, the former makes > changes according to the past experience, is incremental, and will be > bounded by experience; the latter makes random changes (which will be > selected by future experience), is radical and experience-independent. > Evolution produces novel structures, by paying the price of long time and > dead individuals (with unfortunate changes). Not according to Calvin's evolutionary selection in neocortex theory. > To me, the important thing here is not one or two great ideas, but the > average quality of the compounds. Given the same resources, I cannot see > why evolution gives a better result in this aspect. Furthermore, I don't Talk to the drug people. Random libraries are only thing. Intelligence is good to tell the good leads apart from duds, but it is completely useless because its throughput is about zero (one man-week for a single molecule). > know evidence indicating that our mind generate compounds randomly. There Use Google. > are much more pieces of evidence indicating intelligence as a > experience-driven mechanism. Not to flame, but you're trapped in the classical AI problem agnosia. You won't find stuff if you haven't spend some time looking. Armchair reasoning isn't. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpOuFglEG4B8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
